Unless you've been serving warm chai tea to Osama Bin Laden in a cave in Afghanistan over the last month, you're more than aware of the polarizing debate that currently grips America over the recent legislation passed in the Arizona State Legislature.
Americans everywhere are up in arms over the passing of Senate Bill 1070 - and it seems everyone - from local politicians and Civic Leaders, to pandering media personalities, to the usual cast of self-righteous and over-zealous, out-of-touch celebrities, to the President of the United States, to simple, everyday Americans - has an opinion about this new Bill.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, as polarizing as it is.......every so often a political controversy will arise that threatens to, or even unsuspectingly succeeds in, offering a launching point for some of History's most ugly and destructive political paradigm shifts.
Senate Bill 1070 is one of those bills. This bill is dangerous.
More succinctly, the emotionally-driven backlash currently boiling beneath the surface has the potential to be downright catastrophic.
I will leave the content of this bill for others to argue about.......because for the purposes of articulating the very real threat posed by this ever-present underlying danger, the merits of the bill itself are irrelevant.
Allow me to elaborate.
Recently, local, geographically insignificant governments and influential, capital-rich organizations and entities have begun calling for and supporting a boycott of Arizona and anything remotely construed as capable of supporting the struggling economy of that state, in an attempt to voice their opposition to Arizona's new legislation.
In addition to State and local governments' attempts to disregard and upstage the long-held, Constitutionally-supported principle of Individual State's sovereignty by publicly pressuring their constituents to participate in these boycotts - a move which in and of itself should cause outrage as a very transparent and unnerving political power-grab and game of one-upsmanship that has no business in our political landscape - a major Nation-wide movement has placed extreme pressure on, of all things, National Sports Organizations, to participate in, and even accelerate, the oppositional agenda of this Bill's opponents.
This is what America should be concerned about. Not the Bill.......but the backlash.
In much the same way controversial Labor Issues that plagued this Nation in the 1920's and '30's propelled previously benign and well-intentioned Labor Unions and their lobbyists to that of immovable political forces within our government, and eerily similar to how the Savings & Loan Scandals of the 1980's introduced rampant legislation that fundamentally shifted the role that banks and financial institutions play in our economic landscape, to essentially that of an Altruistic Demi-God Capital Dictator - moving markets and making the rules as they go; the opponents of Arizona State's Senate Bill 1070 are on the verge of launching a proverbial nuclear warhead that, once introduced into the stagnant air of our broken, yet still functional political environment, has the potential to cause an irreparable shift in how legislation is introduced, passed and implemented in this country.
Imagine if you will, that one or all of our professional sports organizations in this country; Major League Baseball, the National Football League, or the National Basketball Association, succumbed to the political pressure of this movement and staged a boycott of the State of Arizona and refused to host events in that state. The financial ramifications of the cancellation of all 80 scheduled Arizona Diamondback games in the City of Phoenix, coupled with the countless scores of Minor League Games held all over the Valley of the Sun, by the MLB alone, would be insurmountable and would be the equivalent of a financial deathblow to the already faltering economy of that State.
While this may be exactly what the opponents of this Bill are after, what is the message? What is the lesson? What are the REAL consequences of this action to the future of this Nation and its political process?
The answer: ANY billion-dollar entity with enough clout, influence and determination, can exert their smothering financial influence to abrogate the political process dictated and protected by the Constitution of this Country.
The real threat posed by this scenario, is the premise that any local, State or Federal Government legislation that is passed by any means of Constitutionally-protected due process - i.e., by duly elected officials or by a vote of the constituents of that jurisdiction; to presumably solve or address a problematic condition that exists within that government's geographic or economic boundaries, can be simply dismissed by any corporation or capitalized entity who does not agree with that legislation.
Is this the America we are ready for?
Example: If a particular Government or constituency determines that what is best for that particular economy is to increase a tax on a good or service provided by an industry that is near monopolized by a Billion-Dollar Corporation (Microsoft comes to mind in this example), and that Billion-Dollar Corporation sees this legislation as a threat to its bottom line, how is the Democratic process preserved or even remotely familiar when that corporation can simply use its overtly leveraged position to bypass the political process and extort the American people into repealing the legislation for fear of what amounts to severe economic sanctions?
The Answer: It is NOT.
Should we allow the private sector further access to the political process through what amounts to financial extortion, the very integrity of our long-preserved political due process will be compromised, to an extent that dwarfs that which we have already seen in the worlds of Banking, Labor Unions, Political Campaign Financing and to a certain extent, the Federal Food & Drug Administration.
What's next......the pharmaceutical companies threatening to discontinue patented Heart Medication needed by the elderly unless the newly-found cure for Cancer is not found Unconstitutional?
America is in a battle to save its very foundation......and it has Nothing to do with anything actually written in Arizona Senate Bill 1070.......and EVERYTHING to do with our reaction to it.
Whether you are opposed to this Bill, or believe it to be the penultimate legislation that will cure all of America's immigration problems in one fell swoop, All Americans should be steadfast and vehemently opposed to allowing those feelings to provide a platform for the Communistic-influenced fundamental shift in the way this county legislates, to that of a PUBLIC AUCTION - where our legislative direction is for sale to the highest bidder.
The preservation of our very foundation is on trial here..........and America needs to be united in the cause to preserve this Land of the People, by the People, and for the People...............
Let's let our Major Sports Teams entertain us, our big business sustain us, and our government ordain us, and never allow these roles to be up for debate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
such a well written viewpoint.
ReplyDeletethe issue I have is that even back when this country was founded, money is what moved the government. It's why we revolted against Britain and it's what has made this country move forward. Big Money has always had control - the Boston Tea Party was essentially just a way to change how we were taxed by hurting the pocket book of someone big. As have grassroots type movements that sweep underneath the surface (Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense' for example). While I agree that theoretically Big Money shouldn't infringe upon state's rights and the legislative process, I think it has always been a key player in how legislation passes. Car Manufacturers in Michigan ran that state for a long time and played a huge roll in fossil fuel legislation. Hollywood and the movie industry run a lot of the left wing movements in california. Big oil companies have a strong foothold in Texas. Money talks. I think it's idealistic to expect those with money to not think about using it to throw their weight around.
So where do you draw the line? Is it a certain amount of money? We boycott things all the time. The issue is that most people don't have large enough pocketbooks to make a noticeable difference. Sporting organizations have massive revenue potential - and therefore they wield great power. I'm not sure there is any way to put limits on what they can do with that power or how they are allowed to allocate their choices. It's a business just like any other and if they work within the confines of the business structure, wouldn't it be just as detrimental to the foundations of this country to attempt to limit what they can do? A capitalistic society is built upon the unbreakable tie between money and power. To limit what those with the money can do because we don't agree with their viewpoint undermines the very structure we built this county upon and while we me disagree with the move because we live in the state they are boycotting and would therefore feel the hit the hardest, what if it was the opposite result? would we still be upset if instead they were throwing money at us? It's probably pretty easy to grandstand on the subject when the potential for devastating change is at stake, but what if instead of a threat what was being offered was an exponential increase in money from those sources?
I'm not saying I disagree with you about the subject or feel like sports organizations should stick with what they know -- sports -- and leave laws to the lawmakers. What I am saying is that if we limit the voice of the people, no matter what people they are or how much money they have, aren't we just debilitating yet another of the major foundations this country was built upon -- the ability of the people of the country to change the course of history without having to work with or through or even on the side of the government? This country, built for and by the people, is based on that premise: that government is not the foundation - the people are. And no matter what side of State Bill 1070 someone may be on, the people of arizona are a minority when it comes to an entire country full of naysayers to the bill. True, they are being led by a obviously reaction-seeking media gambit and they may lack perspective or at least the full picture of reality of living in a state with border issues - but they are holding just as firmly to the truths this country was founded on - that of power by majority rule.
All of that to say - I agree with what you've said. I probably should have just left it with that one sentence.
Thanks for the feedback Wendy. So well put, thought out, and factual. I love it.
ReplyDeleteI'll just make two comments -
#1 - The point of my post had nothing whatsoever to do with wanting to legislate further to try to limit the power of large corporations to exert thier will.....moreso to point out to people that pouring thier political willpower into pressuring these large, powerful, influencial, yet otherwise obstinant mega-corporations to "chose a side" in a battle they have no place in, is a dangerous idea. Legislating thier right to do so, would be an even further abrogation of the political process - so I fully agree with you.
However, in a world where political correctness, or lack thereof, can make or break companies and careers, these corporations have only one side to choose, if forced to make that choice, regardless of what side of the issue that company's power-base may actually fall. That is where we've lost any semblance of a Democracy. This is why I believe it to be fundamentally different from the factual references you make to other examples of money = political leverage.
Moreover, if this tactic works in this instance, the people of this country will undoubtedly learn from this and use the same tactic to attempt to thwart other controversial legislation that they may not agree with, again, simply dismissing the entire legislative process entirely. Like it or not, the Bill was passed legally, through the legislative process and by all accounts, is the will of the people of that region.
#2 - While my viewpoint on the Bill itself will probably be published here sometime next week (it will surprise you - I promise), I do disagree that support for the bill is a minority viewpoint, from two perspectives:
First, it is supported by an overwhelming majority of the citizens of its origin, Arizona. The whole idea behind individual State sovereignty can be identified within this struggle, as the only opinion that really matters in this case, is that of those who dwell in the area being affected by the Bill, or, presumably, the lack of, or need for the Bill.
The second part, well, it ties to the first part. Just like I being in California or Arizona have no business formulating an opinion on legislation to allow and tax jelly-fish farming off the coast of Louisiana, because I know nothing about the dynamics of the local economies and/or the real cause and affect relationships between the two opposing viewpoints, I believe most of the country formulates thier opinions on these types of issues based on information that is either incomplete, being steered by a particular political affiliation, or simply from thier own moral compass.......which again, when taken out of context or viewed in a vaccuum, is simply an uneducated decision that lacks merit in the discussion.
Again - thanks for the comments. I think you'll be surprised by my opinion of this rediculous bill.....so stay tuned. :)